Selling a car - can they take car away same day?

Joe_Horner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

What are you on about?

I own both my cars. The police don't nor do the dvla!

He's on about certain (completely bogus) theories of law, espoused by David Icke amongst others, that claim by allowing your car to be registered you're giving ownership to DVLA and that you can't be taken to court for anything because they use capital letters for your name in the summons, which means they're not talking about "you" the person.

But let's not go there.... :rotfl:

Sgt_Pepper_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

He's on about certain (completely bogus) theories of law, espoused by David Icke amongst others, that claim by allowing your car to be registered you're giving ownership to DVLA and that you can't be taken to court for anything because they use capital letters for your name in the summons, which means they're not talking about "you" the person.

But let's not go there.... :rotfl:

David Icke vax. Now I see the similarities.

Lum

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Once a vehicle is sold, the old keeper has no responsibility for it, or what the new owner does with it.............The police were bluffing.

You mean lying?

Figures, *sigh*

Joe_Horner

Lum wrote: »

You mean lying?

Figures, *sigh*

It's not quite that straightforward, Lum. The RTA 1988 S.143(1)(b) and S.143(2) say:

(1)(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.


(2)If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

Neither part specify "the owner", or "the registered keeper", so "a person" refers to anyone who is in a (reasonable) position to "permit" or "deny" the use.

By completing a sale without first confirming that suitable insurance was in place for the drive away could well be argued to be "permitting" because, as the seller, you're in a reasonable position to deny such use by refusing the sale.

Certainly, if the buyer actually admitted that he didn't have insurance in place before completing the sale, you'd be on pretty sticky ground by allowing him to proceed.

mikey72

It's easier just to drive the car home if it's registered in the wife's name, and get her to drive my new car home. (providing you have tp cover and it doesn't exclude the spouses car, or state it needs insurance)

Rover_Driver

Joe_Horner wrote: »

It's not quite that straightforward, Lum. The RTA 1988 S.143(1)(b) and S.143(2) say:

Neither part specify "the owner", or "the registered keeper", so "a person" refers to anyone who is in a (reasonable) position to "permit" or "deny" the use.

By completing a sale without first confirming that suitable insurance was in place for the drive away could well be argued to be "permitting" because, as the seller, you're in a reasonable position to deny such use by refusing the sale.

Certainly, if the buyer actually admitted that he didn't have insurance in place before completing the sale, you'd be on pretty sticky ground by allowing him to proceed.

But once sold, it is no longer his vehicle and responsibility passes to the buyer, the seller has no powers to permit or deny what anyone else does with it, or how they use it.

There are circumstances where 'a person' could commit the offence without being the registered keeper or owner - user of a company car permitting someone else to use it without insurance, for example - but having sold a vehicle, the seller, is not one of them.

JimmyTheWig

Joe_Horner wrote: »

By completing a sale without first confirming that suitable insurance was in place for the drive away could well be argued to be "permitting" because, as the seller, you're in a reasonable position to deny such use by refusing the sale.

Certainly, if the buyer actually admitted that he didn't have insurance in place before completing the sale, you'd be on pretty sticky ground by allowing him to proceed.

But they could sort out their insurance once they had bought the car.
Once you've sorted out your insurance you've lost all bargaining power over the purchase.
What if the seller turns round and says "£850? It was £950 we agreed!". Are you, as the buyer, going to walk away and pay two lots of admin fees for changes to your insurance?

pinkteapot

The buyer could have another car with a fully comp policy that insures them to drive other cars. I would never dream of interrogating a buyer as to whether or not they are insured before they drive off, and I'd be pretty insulted if anyone did the same to me.

Sgt_Pepper_2

pinkteapot wrote: »

The buyer could have another car with a fully comp policy that insures them to drive other cars. I would never dream of interrogating a buyer as to whether or not they are insured before they drive off, and I'd be pretty insulted if anyone did the same to me.

But the 3rd party extension excludes cars you own.

Lum

Last time I sold a car, I avoided the problem quite easily as the buyer was local and his current car still (just about) ran.

I asked if he'd gotten insurance on the new car and he had not. I then offered to drive it to his house for him if he'd give me a lift back, I then parked the car on his driveway, came home and cancelled my insurance.

I think that this demonstrates that I took reasonable measures not to permit the buyer to drive home without insurance. If Joe's interpretation of S143 RTA is correct (and it seems reasonable) this was probably a good thing.

After getting the car safely to the new buyer's address and off the public road I can't reasonably exert any control over what he does with it after that.